Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday November 30, 2009 @12:20AM
from the in-ur-seas-twistin-ur-propeller dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Numerous high-tech devices have been proposed to help ships cope with piracy on the high seas. Now a company has developed a ship-borne launching device that fires a net or coiled rope into the path of pirate vessels using compressed air with a range of up to a range of 400m. The payload net or rope, which has a parachute attached to the end, will unravel and lay out across the surface of the water so that as the pirate boat travels through the water its propeller shaft will pick up the line and become entangled. 'With the trials and testing we've done, it has taken us some 45 minutes to cut and disentangle the line from the propeller itself,' says Jonathan Delf. 'Within that time of course, the target ship is on its way and hopefully help has arrived in the form of naval forces or helicopter support.' The system can be fired up to five times off just a cylinder of air like a simple scuba tank." The video mentions that the device can also fire a payload of golf balls. The systems have recently been sold to "several large shipping companies that travel near the oil-rich Nigerian Delta, which, like the Somalian coast, is rife with piracy."

Nice idea. I absolutely hate it when crap gets stuck in the prop. Not sure how fast these things could be reloaded though and it would be easy to spoof using a water pressure (jet) lower end, although I doubt your random Somali hijacker is going to have the cash to upgrade their motors.

I doubt your random Somali hijacker is going to have the cash to upgrade their motors.

These guys are in new(ish) boats with big engines, an arsenal of weapons and satellite phones. A successful hijacking is worth millions.

When approached by military boats they toss everything into the water and pretend to be fishing. They then return to shore and restock. If they can afford that, I'd hazard a guess that they can afford new engines if these nets become the biggest obstacle to a successful hijacking.

Really? The videos that I've seen have the hijackers running around in what appear to be old open wooden boats between 20 and 30 feet long. Yes, they're dropped off from mother ships that are basically repurposed fishing vessels, but the actual attack boats are pretty basic.

Maybe they could re engine them with jet props, but the golf balls would still be problematic. Of course, if they actually tried to run with 'real' military vessels neither approach would be very helpful. Then it's time for the ha

If I were a navy commander, instead of shooting the bastard pirates, I would rather prefer keeping them alive and using them. As long as the pirates are alive and well, they can be manipulated to disrupt an enemy states transportation of vital material, gather intelligence, wreck panic and fear in an enemy state's civilians/government, etc.

Who do you think are providing the coordinates of victim cargo ships to the poorly equipped pirates?

Just shoot the fuckers already. Pretty soon there won't be any more of them.

From now on, whenever you think "lethal weapons on civilian ships would stop piracy", I want you to consider that this is the same as "lots of armed Chinese marines in Los Angeles Harbor would stop piracy". Then put yourself in the shoes of a President trying to push some kind of international convention permitting that.

Don't think I'd worry about that. More guns in LA than you can fit Chinese marines in a cargo ship. I'd be more worried about that same cargo ship of Chinese Marines pulling into Portsmouth, NH or Boston. LA, though, man, you'd just get the gangs to stop shooting at each other for a few days.

I think the number of pirates would be reduced if the shipping vessels had small autocannons mounted on them. No jalopie fishing trawler can take a burst of 35mm AP shells for very long. Problem solved.

If you're in a small single-engine craft, in waters off the coast of Somalia, and you continue to approach any large commercial vehicle despite repeated auditory warnings, you deserve to be obliterated.

Sometimes being the devil's advocate is quite a useless and stupid exercise.

Foreign governments have no jurisdiction in international waters, which is where these attacks are taking place.

Other governments may see an armed foreign ship in their waters as a threat

If a government feels threatened by small arms contained within a ship that wants to dock then that government is a lost cause. Please explain to me how a weapons locker aboard ship containing rifles, pistols and shotguns represents a threat. Nobody is suggesting arming merchant ships with 16" battleship guns. These pirates can be deterred (and if that fails, defeated) with small arms.

This happens in pretty much every discussion involving pirates. Simply said, there are a very large amounts of ports in the world that do that ships with weapons. Beyond that, I'm sure arming your ship will bring you into completely different categories of international and maritime law that could cause all sorts of problems. And this is before we even start thinking about insurance companies.

They can carry what they want (within reason - no nukes, etc.), it's when they get to port that the problems ensue. Some ports won't let them in, some will require a shit-tonne or paperwork, and some will require massively-lengthy customs checks that eats in to the profits of the vessel quite considerably.

I think the problem comes only when they come into ports that prohibit weapons.

Solution... Just outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the ports (usually very safe places) weapons are offloaded to "locker ships" (for a fee of course) and are loaded back aboard as the commercial/merchant vessel passes back through.

Yes, it would. A semi-automatic rifle is exactly what you want for this. You've got guys in an open boat within a few hundred yards of you. Nice clear line of sight. A fully automatic weapon is just going to waste ammo. The only real use for full auto is suppression -- and that really isn't in the cards on the open ocean.

Shotguns would also be useful. Sometimes the pirates like to sneak aboard ship in the dark or during bad weather. The shotgun is the perfect weapon for that type of fighting.

I think the weapons lockers would be just fine. Restrict access to the captain and one or two of the other senior crew. We trust these guys to pilot tens of thousands of tons of steel without killing anyone. We can trust them with a few small arms.

Before you attempt to kill them, you have to be certain that they are a pirate. Legally certain, not just Slashdot certain.

Fouling their prop doesn't require quite such a high standard of proof, and gets the job done, at least till they get their hands on some jet boats.

It's also not too smart for a pirate to escalate from a small disabled boat -- if someone on that ship had some means of firing back, that could only be deployed against proven pirates, well, you just gave them proof.

Before you attempt to kill them, you have to be certain that they are a pirate. Legally certain, not just Slashdot certain.

As a general rule of thumb, there are three things that need to happen before deadly force is justified:

Ability: The aggressor has the ability and means to do you serious bodily harm. This can be anything from an AK-47, to a knife, to the fists of a trained martial artist.

Opportunity: The aggressor has the opportunity to use the aforementioned ability. The martial artist isn't a threat if he's 100 yards away. The AK-47 isn't a threat if it's 10,000 yards away.

Jeopardy: The aggressor has demonstrated the intent to use the previous two items to do you harm. Your hunting buddy with the slung rifle has ability and opportunity, but obviously lacks intent.

Pirates approaching a boat armed with AK-47s have met all three of those variables. They have the ability and opportunity to do the crew harm and have demonstrated an intent to do so. Under the laws of most nations you are entitled to respond with deadly force in such a scenario.

Fouling their prop doesn't require quite such a high standard of proof, and gets the job done

Yes it does. You can't just disable boats on the open ocean and leave their crews at the mercy of the sea and elements.

I don't understand why everybody is hung up on this fear of 'making mistakes'. Why is it every time that somebody suggests arming potential victims somebody else comes along and starts worrying about friendly fire? It rarely works out that way in the real world. It's even less likely in a maritime setting.

Just stop and think about it for a moment. Small craft do not follow merchant ships around for no reason. They have a pretty good incentive to steer clear of them. When approached, the merchant ship will respond with a hailing device. If it's some innocent situation then this fact will be discovered fairly quickly. If the small craft is filled with guys armed with AK-47s whom match every change in course then it's a fairly safe assumption that they have nefarious intent.

Putting arms in the hands of the good guys does not turn them into trigger happy nutjobs that kill random innocent people at the slightest provocation. The three concepts that I outlined above are standard operating procedure for police departments and armed civilians around the world. This isn't rocket science.

Ok. How about this. Your ship is not armed because it wants to be able to dock anywhere in the world. So you've been under attack and fighting them off with water cannons. You got some friendly navy on the radio and they send a chopper your way. So it's like... 10 minutes out when the dudes in the ship start turning tail. What the hell do you do? Fuck up their props. Just like how mace is used instead of guns in some cases, you'll use this device instead of guns in some cases.But yes. Just shooting them whe

That's a bad idea. Typically the pirates don't kill the crew. If you started having hostile crews using lethal force against pirates, you may see the pirates escalate their attack and use more deadly force. In the end everyone loses.

I don't know about you, but being an American I would rather take my chances in a gun battle with the pirates (a rail mounted Browning M2 [wikipedia.org] heavy machine gun would be very useful against pirates armed with AK-47s and RPGs fired from small skiffs) than be taken as a hostage back to Somalia where any Americans will almost certainly be turned over to the local Islamic militias and beheaded. In fact, after the incident with the Maersk Alabama the Somali pirates have already threatned to do just that.

The US military has alread killed the pirates out of necessity; the United States has a long term policy of not negotiating with terrorists, hijackers, or hostage takers. Appeasment only makes the aggressor more aggressive and paying ransoms is not good long term policy. The horse is out of the barn on this one and Americans should avoid capture by Somali pirates at any price. Remember that it is the Somali pirates who are the villains in this business, they attacked first and the US Navy responded in kind. They got what was coming to them.

That's a bad idea. Typically the pirates don't kill the crew. If you started having hostile crews using lethal force against pirates, you may see the pirates escalate their attack and use more deadly force. In the end everyone loses.

On the other hand, escalating it so the pirates have the potential of a real consequence (death versus sent back to shore with a slap on the wrist) is exactly what needs to happen. It would discourage them from trying to make easy money by being pirates, and put pressure on the vritually non-exist govt of their contries to do something about the problem.

Killing pirates likely will just piss off the aforementioned larger and better armed group of pirates.

Having a properly trained security force on or traveling with a merchant ship is VERY expensive

The odds of a pirate attack are extremely low even in high piracy areas

If you are in the territorial waters of a foreign country you are subject to their laws and some places take a fairly dim view of killing another person even in self defense. Especially if you are not a citizen of that country and the (alleged) pirate is a citizen.

You had better be DAMN SURE they actually are pirates before you kill them

That said if you can shoot them dead, I'm pretty sure no one will mind. Provided you are in international waters AND you can prove your case that you didn't just murder someone AND you can explain why your ship is armed AND you can somehow figure out a way to kill a group of pirates that out numbers yours and is probably better armed.

This would only really be a probelm with permanent mounts, such as the aforementioned deck guns, while the heavy machine guns could easily be offloaded...

Easily? You're going to offload heavy weaponry while in international waters? Yes you can do it but easy isn't the word I'd use. Never mind that many incidents of piracy do not occur in international waters.

This way, a crew of military contractors could be transferred from ship to ship, along with their armament, to escort them through the dangerous area without ever nearing an unfriendly port themselves.

They already do this. Guess what? There still are problems. In places like the Strait of Malacca there are narrow areas where there are effectively no international waters. 50,000 vessels a year go through. Those contractors are subject to the local laws if they chase a pirate.

There are ways to work out the logistics if the laws cannot be changed.

Perhaps but not the economics. Armed escorts are very, very expensive. Arming ships is very very expensive. Shipping companies are frequently unprofitable and might not be able to pass on the costs to their customers. Until piracy becomes a MUCH bigger problem, the economics of the problem will be the strongest argument against arming merchant ships.

You have a very simplistic view of this problem. Seriously, if it was simply as easy as arming a merchant ship, don't you think they would have done it already?

If you're approaching a large commercial ship of any kind, plying its trade in the waters off the coast of East Africa, and you continue to ignore the many and varied warnings to do otherwise, you deserve to get shot. The innocent people you're concocting out of thin air for the sake of juvenile, devil's advocate, argumentation... is breathtakingly naive.

It's the high seas - international waters. Some fuckhead comes at you in a zodiac and opens up with his AK47? I can imagine the interview...

Q: So - you saw the boat approach. It had people inside and you could see they were armed. They opened fire with warning shots over your boat. You looked through the scope of your rifle at the shooter. What did you feel?
A: The recoil of my rifle.

If I was in a 30ft yacht or a 500m container ship, if someone approached my ship on the high seas, I would be VERY wary, and the instant anyone tried anything rash, I would instantly perforate them with overwhelming firepower, especially if I was in a small boat, as I would feel much more vulnerable. If I'm in a small private boat, I am NOT in the mood for taking visitors in the middle of the ocean of any size or variety and would consider ANY such visitor a threat. If I am in a giant commercial ship, I am ONLY interested in properly flagged and responding government vessels coming for a visit. The rest are either pirates or Darwinbait.

The tipoff would probably when they start coming at you with highspeed boats (they only use slower larger "fishing boats" as motherships, they need small highspeed boats to catch their prey) and start firing warning shots with machine guns and RPGs.

The real reason they are not using real weapons against the pirates isn't because the couldn't be sure they were shooting the right people, but rather because docking at ports becomes much more complicated legally when you are carrying weapons.

Most of the people doing the actual "pirating" have been pushed to it by their government. The source of the problem isn't greed, it's necessity (with a decent payoff, too).

No, Somalia hasn't had an effective government in almost 20 years. If they had, there would be police and coast guard and someone to answer for the pirates. Territories are controlled by warlords, plain and simple.

They may have been pushed into piracy by their local warlords - by the lack of government, if you will, but not by the Somalian government.

But no matter why they became pirates, they are still pirates, and they deserve the same fate as pirates throughout history. Swift, irreversible justice. Doesn't matter if they're volunteers or conscripts, on drugs, just kids, old fishermen, or whatever -- they've all proven themselves by heading out to sea to commit murder. For each pirate sent to the bottom of the sea, the people back home become a little more scared, and a little less willing to head out on another attack.

The sea is a lot more brutal and less policed than Central Park, and things don't turn out nice and neat like a cop booking a mugger.

Golf balls at high speed will kill. Sounds like you're moving into real weapons now.

It seems to me to board your ship, these pirates must pull up alongside. And your ship will be a lot taller than theirs. Why not fire or just plain drop a large cannonball (sphere of metal about a foot in diameter) through the deck and hull of their ship? It'll sink quickly and they'll be in a really bad way.

You could even use a video camera to look down over the gunwale and aim so that you don't have to be in the line of fi

With that much forward inertia, a wide enough net cast close enough to the boat would be impossible to avoid. Kind of like trying to miss the deer that just ran out in front of you. Never mind coming to a stop; can you even get your foot on the brake pedal before impact?

I'd think if they're firing golfballs like a shotgun, they should be able to use just about anything. A good high velocity rain of rocks would probably be very satisfactory, and leave a less distinguishing mark.:)

"Dunno what killed these guy, but there were a bunch of loose rocks on the deck. Must have been a meteor shower.":)

Arm the crew when they get into hostile waters. Put the arms under lock and key when they leave hostile waters.

Announce before entering a port that you have weapons, but they are locked up. Let the harbor pilot have the key and verify weapons are secure before allowing the vessel into port. Then get the key back when existing the harbor.

I have read that one primary reason that the shipping companies don't allow weapons on board is that they fear they'll be used against their own ships. A non-trivial percentage of merchant crew members are bottom-of-the-barrel sailors, who might not be as trustworthy as desired. Give them easy access to weapons, and they might decide to do a little hijacking of their own - from within. Millions of dollars of ransom is a pretty powerful temptation.

How difficult would it be to equip ships with Browning M2 [wikipedia.org].50 machine guns and man a watch for incoming pirate vessels. The Browning M2, with an maximum effective range of 1.2 miles, could turn those pirate skiffs into driftwood long before the pirates were in AK-47 or RPG range. Shoot em full of holes and leave them for the sharks; when word gets around the piracy doesn't pay, the pirates will forced to give up or be killed. From all appearances the pirates are in it for the money so they will give up if piracy doesn't pay; after all, dead men tell no tales and spend no money.

Tell me, at a glance, what makes a pirate vessel look different from a fishing vessel?

You alter course and they move to pursue or intercept? If the watchmen spots a suspected pirate ship approaching closer than 1,760 yards (about 1 mile), he can signal the bridge and the ship can alter course away from the suspected pirate ship. If they refuse communication, give chase, and attempt to close the distance then it is pretty obvious what their intentions are. Besides, what would Somali fishermen, who are not generally equipped with modern trawlers and towed nets, be doing more than 100 miles off the coast? No, I don't think that it would be a big problem, especially since most cargo ships these days are not looking to approach the Somali coast any closer than that anyway. You might even be generous and direct the first burst well out in front of them, as a warning, before destroying them if they continue to press the attack. This could all be worked out in the training protocols without too much difficulty.

Further more, how many.50 machine gun stations do you need to cover a ship that is 300 metres long, keep in mind that there will be obstructions like the bridge. Now how do you ensure that an untrained merchant sailor could effectively operate and care for the weapon (whaaa? seawater is corrosive, firearms, even highly reliable ones tend not to like prolonged exposure). In addition merchant vessels will have about 30 to 50 crew (crew served.50 requires 3 operators, a crew of 40 will have 1/3 of the crew on station, 4 weapon stations to provide minimum but complete coverage will require 12 operators leaving 2 to operate all the other ship functions), not all of them may want firearm training (in fact I suspect most of them, which is why they are in the merchant navy not the military navy)

You alter course and they move to pursue or intercept?

Because oil tankers and bulk carriers turn on a dime like Ferrari's right. There are good reasons these ships do not go into port under their own power, they require pilot vessels and the bigger your ship the more pilots are required. Turning a bulk carrier will take several minutes especially if the vessel is already going at a good clip (try accelerating to 120 Kph in a minivan and see how manoeuvrable it is, water makes this effect worse).

The freighter is moving at speed X, the vessel is moving at speed Y, find speed X and speed Y and tell me how long it will take before the vessel catches up with the freighter if the starting distance is 2 Kilometres (you will learn to love the metric system). This is assuming the freighter does not decelerate to turn and the vessel is already travelling at full speed.

If they refuse communication, give chase, and attempt to close the distance then it is pretty obvious what their intentions are

No it isn't, their intention isn't clear until shots are fired.

Besides, what would Somali fishermen, who are not generally equipped with modern trawlers and towed nets, be doing more than 100 miles off the coast

umm... fishing.

We've had boats that could fish that far off shore for hundreds of years, there are a lot of old trawlers (40's 50's and 60's, commercial fishing is not a new thing you know) in that area and most of them aren't pirate vessels.

This could all be worked out in the training protocols without too much difficulty.

Except the legal difficulties of allowing armed vessels into port or the logistical difficulties of ensuring every merchant vessel in that area is armed or the cost of ensuring that each merchant sailor is capable of operating and caring for a firearm or the risk that untrained and undisciplined merchant sailors will freeze up when they come under rocket or AK 47 fire or pirates will learn to co-ordinate their attacks and outnumber the merchantmen.

Well, apart from that it should be a cinch.

The best solution is to stop paying them, but who would go along with a crazy idea like that. (one could also have their loot boobytraped so they get killed after receiving it, the MOSSAD approved solution but this would be semi-effective at best)

I served in the Navy on a supply ship at the end of the Gulf War. Non-rated seaman, oh joy.

Since we were a non-combatant ship, we only had a few GMs on board. As a result, the gun mount crews were mostly manned by us deck apes.

I was on a.50 mount as assistant loader. Every time we went to General Quarters we had to fully assemble the guns, which were kept in airtight lockers near the actual mount. Open the locker, remove the weapon, set it in place, slide in a half-dozen keyed pins, load and lock and you're ready to rock. Takes all of 60 seconds.

No salt-water corrosion problems at all, and our training was minimal.

But internal polling among Nautilus members has indicated a "hardening of attitudes" in recent months, with more calling for armed protection, Linington said.

Meaning what? 5 people thought it was a good idea before and 10 do now? The article conveniently provides no actual numbers or data - merely a vague assertion about "hardening of attitudes" that could mean almost anything. Nice sound bite though.

There has always been discussion about it. Doesn't mean it's a good idea or that any reputable shipping companies are spending a lot of time on the problem. Right now it's pretty clear that arming merchant ships is a waste of resources on an insignificant probl

"Just another corp' making money from fear, while providing no real protection"

when you stop thinking, and depend upon stereotypes of behavior to describe the world around you, you defeat your own ideology by making yourself look brainless. fact #1: prop fouling is a valid tactic that works, and you say as much in your own comment. fact #2: there are real threats in this world, such as pirates off somalia

are pirates off somalia baseless fearmongering by big media to scare clueless fools... or real entities? then what the hell is "Just another corp' making money from fear" suppose to mean? pffft

So they had water cannons, noise makers, and now a flippin' rope cannon? Give those ships real guns with real bullets already! These pirates mean business. Any resistance these pirates meet is often returned with lethal force. Giving in to them and paying ransom is just calling for more of the same. Pay the Danegeld and you don't get rid of the Dane.

These ships need to have weapons that can match or surpass what the pirates have. Bolt a 25 mike mike to the deck if you must. Some little ship comes screaming up to your ship with guys carrying machine guns and rocket launchers shooting at you then its weapons free. They understand return fire. Make it too difficult to be worth their time and the piracy will stop.

All of this less than lethal crap has got to end. Give those ships real guns with real bullets!

Yep, I'm a bit perturbed over this. All this politically correct crap is getting people killed.

You foul their props at 400m, they'll punch a hole in the side of your cargo vessel with an RPG at 400m easy as pie

Considering that the RPG7 (very high tech for a Somali pirate) is not considered accurate after 100 metres, sure. Most of them will have the older Soviet rocket launchers (read: Ancient (Vietnam era) and made by the Chinese before they had today's high standards in manufacturing (hint: that's sarcasm)).

Greetings and Salutations...
If all of you chicken hawks REALLY think that blasting pirates out of the water is the best option, I would suggest this:

1) Band together (facebook is a good option).
2) Pool your savings and buy a freighter (lots of them parked now, and available for cheap).
3) Join the crew, and bring your biggest guns along.
4) Cruise the Somolia coast a few times and have fun blasting the pirates.
5) PROFIT!

Now...do not be too surprised if, after the second or third time you blow a group of attacking pirates out of the water, you find yourselfvisited by support ships with RATHER larger guns.

If I commandeered a shipping vessel and if I had a choice between (1) some flying rope that can be shot out of an air cannon and (2) on-board artillery like a machine gun (or something that can blast a hole in an on-coming vessel), I would rather choose the artillery. The problem with this flying rope is that it might enrage the pirate, and he might aim his artillery at you and also signal for assistance. If his comrades arrive at the scene, then your flying rope will not stop the thugs from putting a bullet in your head.

I would too. Unfortunately, many countries into whose ports (and hence sovereign territory) you might with to sail might take issue with a cargo ship with a machine gun on it. They might even insist that you receive clearance as a military vessel or put other bureaucratic hurdles in the way. Remember, any delay costs you at least $50k an day in lost time, aside from the actual expense of dealing with it. It would be nice if there was a uniform agreement on the armament of cargo ships that exempted such things from local law* but there just isn't. A ship that makes multiple port calls is going to need to hire a lawyer from each country just to ensure compliance.

* For instance, if you were a crewman storing a rifle or pistol in your quarters while making a stop in the lovely Port of Boston, you would be guilty of possessing a firearm without a license. I'm sure the authorities aren't keen on enforcing that law but that such conduct is technically criminal since there is no exemption.

Queue the 1/2" kevlar rope! A quarter mile of the stuff ought to do the trick. The worst part about lines jamming the propeller is that the line gets coiled up in the space between where the propeller and the hull meet, and the motion causes the prop to pull the propshaft out of the boat (with the engine attached). This causes what's called a "through hull hole", aka an "oh shit!" circumstance, wherein the boat sinks as the engine room fills with water. The rope doesn't even have to be particularly strong to do this. This isn't as big of a problem for outboard motors (what the pirates use) but it does cause problems for them with fouled props, etc.

Queue the 1/2" kevlar rope! A quarter mile of the stuff ought to do the trick. The worst part about lines jamming the propeller is that the line gets coiled up in the space between where the propeller and the hull meet, and the motion causes the prop to pull the propshaft out of the boat (with the engine attached).

Err, the massive propellers that most cargo ships use make trying to foul one useless? Unless that rope you're using is 20cm thick or better, good luck with fouling a prop whose average diameter would often dwarfs the pirate's boat entirely with room to spare. Hell, good luck fouling the prop by ramming your entire boat into it for that matter...

Maybe you meant the golf ball cannon option? Umm, okay - you only have to get the balls up 5-10 stories high, not counting superstructure, let alone the bridge. RPG's are probably more plentiful than golf balls in that part of the world, and tend to be a lot more portable, methinks.

I'd go with a different approach. A tightly packed array of 50x50 green lasers with a calibrated spotting scope on it. Optionally, protect the person manning the laser station with bulletproof shielding. When you see an obviously hostile craft approaching, everyone on the friendly ship dons their protective eyewear which blocks out the green laser frequency in case of any bounce-back. Then spot them through the scope and flip the switch and pan across the whole ship. Makes them nice and blind.

After that, the crew can follow up with a little napalm or ship-mounted flamethrower. A sulfuric acid cannon would be pretty sweet too. Or a few remote controlled.50 cal turrets with armor piercing bullets setup to pin each vessel in a crossfire. Or these mounted on the bow and stern of the ship setup to be armed when enemy vessels approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6GpAnmAPU [youtube.com]

I doubt they would bother. A few (or a few dozen) RPGs would be both cheaper and more effective.

I like the idea that the "good guys" can use expensive high tech to "stun" the bad guy's vessels, but if I were a captain of a ship being raided, I doubt I would prefer gumming up their motors to blowing them out of the water. Not only that but if you just mess with the pirates equipment they will just go on to do the same again later once they repair it. Sure the helicopter support might arrive in time and kill all the pirates, but at that point why not just kill the pirates from the boat int he first place?

It would seem like a limited lethal weapon system mounted on the transports would be the most efficient option.

Sure the helicopter support might arrive in time and kill all the pirates, but at that point why not just kill the pirates from the boat int he first place?

This has been the key question all along, and unfortunately there's an answer to it. They won't arm the transports, or the crews of the transports, because they are more scared of what might happen if somebody gets mad, makes a mistake, or otherwise screws up, than they are of the pirates themselves. So the answer is, "Our insurance company won't let us do that..." Not a very satisfactory answer, but an answer nevertheless.

this isn't a domestic dispute in your local burb. when your 200km off the somali coast, WHAT authorities are going to come to your aid? besides it's not like you wouldn't fire off a few warning shots first (after signalling them). frankly there's not much margin for error when a boat load of gun bearing somali pirates are headin your way.

You're confusing "judge and jury" with "self-defense". If you come at me shooting while holding an innocent in front of you, I'm probably going to shoot back. Guess what - if I shoot and kill the innocent you (not me) get the associated murder charge. You murdered the innocent by putting them in a situation where they could reasonably be expected to die by your actions.

In the 1700s and early 1800s, the solution to piracy was for British (and later, American) warships to hang pirates immediately when captured. And to not be too picky about capturing them instead if sinking their vessels. It's time that our Wimpy-In-Chief grow a few stones and return to the tried-and-true measures. Pirates are lazy cowards; they're in it for the money. Make it not only unprofitable but also NASTY dangerous, and they'll find other lines of work.

Pirates are lazy cowards; they're in it for the money. Make it not only unprofitable but also NASTY dangerous, and they'll find other lines of work.

And what ther lines of work are they going to find in Somalia? The pirates are mainly ex-fishermen, but the fishing grounds have been destroyed by overfishing by foreign factory ships and by foreign dumping of toxic waste. It's a subsistence area, so there's no other work. Are you going to let them move to your country to find work? If not then they have a choice of crime or starve, and you're never going to make it "nasty dangerous" enough to put off the person who would starve to death otherwise. As for stories of pirates making a fortune out of piracy -- well, you can bet they're not the ones at sea risking their necks; they're the ones on land with a nice chain of plausible deniability to dissociate them from what's happening at sea.

Having been in the military - The number of people willing and able to kill other people, even when you're in mortal danger, is still fairly low, and those who ARE willing and able usually go home with significant issues to deal with.

Some ships will have crew members willing and able to use lethal force against pirates, but the GP still has a good point.

Well, I haven't made my mind with regards to the efficiency of this tool yet but I wander what will be the effects of the left overs on sea wildlife.

Also, it seems all the pirates will have to do to avoid the line is use water jet propulsion boats, no external propeller on these boats. If it becomes widely used, pirates should upgrade rather quickly.

If they are firing on you, they are a legitimate target both from a moral standpoint but also in terms of maritime law. I'm not saying that cargo ships should urn around firing on any boat they see. However, if a boat fires upon them, which this pirates do, they should be allowed to return fire. Doesn't really matter who the people in the boat are or claim to be, there is no reason for them to open fire without provocation.

That's what you have to remember. It isn't as though the pirates show up with fishing

I have some experience in this area.. what we had were the double mounted Ma Duece's, Mark 19's, and 25mm AntiAir. Regardless, people are right when they say the issue is that countries all over are strict about weapons at port. I did an escort up the Suez once and when we got to Greece someone didn't do the right paperwork, so we had to send two of the crew with all the weapons and ammo to spain!

When will you yanks learn that just throwing guns at a problem always makes it worse not better.

When you bring guns, they just bring bigger guns. And bombs and missiles. Just remember, pirates aren't going to give a crap about the same rules that limit what firepower a legal vessel can carry.

You start firing back, the pirates will just tool up with bigger guns and perhaps with RPGs etc. They will also reduce risk to themselves by shooting first instead of giving the crew a chance to surrender. They could just adopt a strategy of sinking boats first then taking whatever survivors a.k.a hostages are left from the sea.

When you bring guns, they just bring bigger guns. And bombs and missiles. Just remember, pirates aren't going to give a crap about the same rules that limit what firepower a legal vessel can carry.

It's not a matter of throwing guns at them, it's a matter of throwing money at them.To capture an unarmed vessel with 30 to 50 people on it, you need what, 5 or 6 people with assault rifles loaded in a fast skiff?If we can deter those 5 or 6 people, they need more boats. If we can sink their skiffs, they need bigger or armored attack vessels. That one jump in cost alone takes the investment from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, and smaller cuts for the pirates.Granted, the simplest

Frankly considering the 1970's (Vietnam era) weaponry the pirates currently have, I don't think they stand a chance against the kind of weaponry a license holder can get in many countries. Many don't realize how much a difference modern weapons make. There are a decent number of fairly affordable choices that have an effective range of a mile. AKA-47's especially old ones wouldn't be able to hit a barn from more than 1000 meters same goes with RPGs. They would be dead long before there posed any threat. Eve

"When will you yanks learn that just throwing guns at a problem always makes it worse not better."

You're so right. After all, guns did nothing to stop the Nazis. If the crews of the captured ships just sat down nicely with the duly elected pirate representatives and met their perfectly reasonable requests to kidnap you and take your ship and cargo then I'm sure any remaining survivors would walk away happy.

"When you bring guns, they just bring bigger guns. And bombs and missiles. Just remember, pirates aren't going to give a crap about the same rules that limit what firepower a legal vessel can carry."

Yes, and before you know it all the pirates will have nuclear dreadnoughts and orbital particle cannons. Oh the humanity!

Or maybe they'd realize that getting shot and drowning at sea is a lot more likely than getting rich. And, being poor and unable to buy the latest Stark Industries weapons technology from the local Pirates R' Us, they'd find something better to do.